EUTIQUIA AVERA, petitioner-appellee, v.

MARINO GARCIA, and JUAN RODRIGUEZ, as

guardian of the minors Cesar Garcia and Jose Garcia, objectors-appellants.
G.R. No. 15566 September 14, 1921 Street, J.

DOCTRINE OF THE CASE:

The object of the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to close the door against bad faith and
fraud, to avoid substitution o will and testaments and to guarantee their truth and authenticity. Therefore
the laws on this subject should be interpreted in such a way as to attain these primordial ends. But, on the
other hand, also one must not lose sight of the fact that it is not the object of the law to restrain and
curtail the exercise of the right to make a will. So when an interpretation already given assures such
ends, any other interpretation whatsoever, that adds nothing but demands more requisites entirely
unnecessary, useless and frustrative of the testator's last will, must be disregarded.

FACTS:

Eutiquia Avera instituted proceedings for the probate of the will of one Esteban Garcia, the contest was
made Marino Garcia and Juan Rodriguez, in the capacity of guardian for the minors Jose Garcia and
Cesar Garcia. During the hearing, the proponent of the will introduced one of the three attesting witnesses
who testified that the will was executed with all necessary external formalities, and that the testator was at
the time in full possession of disposing faculties. The witness was corroborated by the person who wrote
the will at the request of the testator. Two of the attesting witnesses were not introduced, nor was their
absence accounted for by the proponent of the will.

The opposition introduced a single witness whose testimony tended to show in a vague and indecisive
manner that at the time the will was made the testator was so debilitated as to be unable to comprehend
what he was about.

The trial judge found that the testator at the time of the making of the will was of sound mind and
disposing memory and that the will had been properly executed. He accordingly admitted the will to
probate, hence this appeal.

ISSUES:
1. Whether a will can be admitted to probate, where opposition is made, upon the proof of a single
attesting witness, without producing or accounting for the absence of the other two;
2. Whether the will in question is rendered invalid by reason of the fact that the signature of the testator
and of the three attesting witnesses are written on the right margin of each page of the will instead of the
left margin.

RULING:
1. YES. Upon the first point, while it is undoubtedly true that an uncontested will bay be proved by the
testimony of only one of the three attesting witnesses, nevertheless in Cabang vs. Delfinado (34 Phil.,
291), this court declared after an elaborate examination of the American and English authorities that when
a contest is instituted, all of the attesting witnesses must be examined, if alive and within reach of the
process of the court.

In the present case no explanation was made at the trial as to why all three of the attesting witnesses were
not produced, but the probable reason is found in the fact that, although the petition for the probate of this
will had been pending from December 21, 1917, until the date set for the hearing, which was April 5,
1919, no formal contest was entered until the very day set for the hearing; and it is probable that the
attorney for the proponent, believing in good faith the probate would not be contested, repaired to the
court with only one of the three attesting witnesses at hand, and upon finding that the will was contested,
incautiously permitted the case to go to proof without asking for a postponement of the trial in order that
he might produce all the attesting witnesses.

Although this circumstance may explain why the three witnesses were not produced, it does not in itself
supply any basis for changing the rule expounded in the case above referred to; and were it not for a fact
now to be mentioned, this court would probably be compelled to reverse this case on the ground that the
execution of the will had not been proved by a sufficient number of attesting witnesses.

2. NO. We are of the opinion that the will in question is valid. It is true that the statute says that the
testator and the instrumental witnesses shall sign their names on the left margin of each and every page;
and it is undeniable that the general doctrine is to the effect that all statutory requirements as to the
execution of wills must be fully complied with. The same doctrine is also deducible from cases heretofore
decided by this court.

Still some details at times creep into legislative enactments which are so trivial it would be absurd to
suppose that the Legislature could have attached any decisive importance to them. The provision to the
effect that the signatures of the testator and witnesses shall be written on the left margin of each page —
rather than on the right margin — seems to be this character. So far as concerns the authentication of the
will, and of every part thereof, it can make no possible difference whether the names appear on the left or
no the right margin, provided they are on one or the other.

The instrument now before us contains the necessary signatures on every page, and the only point of
deviation from the requirement of the statute is that these signatures appear in the right margin instead of
the left. By the mode of signing adopted every page and provision of the will is authenticated and guarded
from possible alteration in exactly the same degree that it would have been protected by being signed in
the left margin; and the resources of casuistry could be exhausted without discovering the slightest
difference between the consequences of affixing the signatures in one margin or the other.